Comparing The Bible And The Public Of Plato

As Plato pointed out in The Republic, the government should be ruled by the most wise, intelligent, non-corrupt and individual in the city who does not want to rule, thus being the philosopher. The "philosopher king" idea on paper works well because it portraits the philosopher as a robotic figure who has no heart and does whatever that's good for the city. In real life, humans no matter how unbendable they are, they will still be changed by the original sins like lust and greed. Even Plato admitted with the allegory of the Ring of Gyges, which no matter how legitimate an individual is, as soon as he get his hands onto power he start to sin. In The Republic, the Ring of Gyges is described as a ring that gives invisibility power then the man goes out and does whatever he wants and is unnoticed. In reality, even when a philosopher is given a king's power, his sins would make him unfit for Plato' model.

Within the study of rulers, we read differing views from five different authors. The first author, Plato, wrote in his book, The Republic, that there are different levels of understanding the world. The lowest level of understanding, he said, was when someone could see the shadow of the image, then above that level of understanding was to understand the images themselves. That level consisted of most of the people within a society. A select view could understand the next level; scientific manifestations of objects. Finally, the highest level of understanding was known as understanding the pure forms. Plato wrote that whoever understood the pure forms of the world was fit to be the ruler, which he called the philosopher king. He believed this philosopher king would guide the

As Socrates was building the city, according to his different accounts of how city ought to be. There were different classes of people and the position they held in the cities community. In a just city as Socrates claims there will be citizens, guardians and a philosopher king as the ruler of the city. In order to maintain order, politics influence on human nature by politically influencing laws such as stopping peoples from changing their division of labour. For example, Socrates claims that it is impossible for an individual to practice many crafts proficiently as discussed by the companions earlier. (Plato, 1992, p. 49). The reason there is division of peoples in the city is so the city can run efficiently, if there were many people doing many thing, there will not be an efficiency of work. For this reason, politics constrained human nature in which individual as human nature wants to do more than one thing, but it is stopped through influence of ideology of how one ought to be. That individual does not want to do one job for the rest of his life; this form of ideology is first form pre capital which was discussed in the republic. Continuing, as politics influence increases in the republic the more constrained human nature becomes. In politics, the political thought of Socrates creates a guardian for city, a protector to defend against an enemy or to conquer land for the city. In

Socrates (aristocracy)….. By establishing the four unjust constitutions of the city, and the man that parallels each. He lists each constitution, explaining that each one is worse than the previous; timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. “Then, just as we began by looking for them in the individual, thinking that they’d be clearer in the former, shouldn’t we first examine the honor-loving constitution?” (215,545b) Socrates presents this structure as inevitable stages a city will faced, caused by the deterioration of human nature. Socrates explains that rulers of the just city will choose the next contemporaries by relying on their understanding of what constitutes a just ruler. Eventually leading to people not suited to occupy positions

Plato thinks that the philosopher king aristocracy would be the best type of government, one needs to ask would this type of government control man’s appetite for wealth and luxuries? The kings would not themselves accrue wealth according to the republic, so where would it go, to the army, or to public education, or maybe back to the people to build better means to take care of themselves? These ideas he has are irrelevant because all the stages intertwine together in some form. They do not stray

After Jotham's speech, he ran to the city of Beer and lived there because he was afraid of his brother. Jotham feared his Abimelech and death. God saved him from being killed because God had a plan for him. That plan stopped the people from following Abimelech. People need to realize that the time they have on earth is short.

God eventually lets the Hebrews have the king they crave, but it seems as if God does this as a test or to teach a lesson, rather than giving in to their begging. This displays that Their God is reasonable, and not reckless. God’s power has previously been expressed by him creating a thundering storm out of nowhere. This frightens many of the people showing that he can easily control or smite them as he pleases.

Because the judges were corrupt, and because everyone else had a king, Israel asked for one too. They were rushing God’s timing, by asking for a king “like all the other nations have” (1 Samuel 8:5 NLT). They wanted someone they could see to fight their battles for them. They, in a sense, rejected God as their king. This attitude indicates that the people were looking at the other nations and at those rulers’ outward characteristics. So, when the people demanded a king for the second time, God gave them what they demanded.

As one of the most significant works in philosophy, The Republic has been one of the most historically and intellectually influential basis of many political theories and philosophical approaches since its first appearance. It is also crucial to mention that the book contains both Plato’s and Socrates’ arguments of life and the view of the Athenian Democracy in the ancient Greek world. Therefore, it can be confusing and complicated to decide to which philosopher the arguments belong. The main focus of the book is to find the definition and the whereabouts of order, justice and to establish a just state, as well as to prove that a just man is happier than the unjust man by providing examples. The true importance of The Republic lies in the fact that everything has meaning in it, not only the arguments, but also the people who act as metaphors for the different kind of roles, which they fulfill in the Athenian society, furthermore the way they speak symbolizes those roles and every one of them embodies a part of the soul and the city-state. Even though it is not obvious, Plato / Socrates criticizes the Athenian society and tries to establish a new, ideal one with the different people he meets and talks to in the book.

God proved to the Israelites that he could deliver His people. If the Israelites never had failed God, they would have enjoyed living in the Promised Land without having judges or kings to help them escape the problems they created for themselves. Instead, they left with scars and a bad record of wrongs throughout their history, leaving behind a divided kingdom and a period of exile. The complaining and the disobedience before the Judges brought the continuation of sin affecting the people and the environment surrounding them. Ehud is an example of a judge who people would condemn, but God chose a person with a physical defect to humiliate the Moabites and to bring the Israelites back to

The Republic is divided into many books. Book 1 is set typically in the form of an early dialogue. The central theme of our study begins in Book 2 wherein Socrates attempts to hash out an elaborate positive theory of justice which continues till the end of The Republic. In particular, in Book VIII, Socrates prepares to discuss four types of unjust constitutions, namely, timocracy, democracy, oligarchy and tyranny. These arguments are

Arad was a Canaanite King who attacked the children of Israel, when he heard that they were coming by the way of Atharim towards his land, when they journey from Egypt, he fought against Israel, and took some of them as prisoners. After these Canaanite king had some of God’s people captive, that Israel vowed a vow to the Lord, and said, if thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities. The Lord hearkened to the voice of the Israel, and gave over King Arad and his Canaanite kingdom into the hand of Israel that they utterly destroyed them and their cities (Numbers 21:1-3).

Plato’s view of division of labour is divided into three types of peoples’ task in life which are workers as farmers, military type and guardians. Actually, the ruling task of Plato’s Republic is the guardian’s responsible who had achieved the greatest wisdom or knowledge of good. Due to that, Plato claims that “philosopher must become kings or those now who called kings must genuinely and adequately philosophise’’ (Nussbaum1998, p.18). However, people argue about the reasons that the philosopher should rule the city, while the philosophers prefer to gain knowledge instead of power, thus they don’t seek this authority. Therefore, the argument should alter to why the philosophers are the best ruler to govern people. Indeed, Plato states

Plato’s Philosopher King has spent many years in training, dedication and preparation for the singular goal of becoming a king. The Philosopher King has spent many a-years with the people of his kingdom. He lived with them and learned of them and their ways. This way he can better understand what is good for his people when he is ruling them. Melissa Lanek, writer of Encyclopædia Britannica, says about the Philosopher King, “Philosophers are both morally and intellectually suited to rule: morally because it is in their nature to love truth and learning so much that they are free from the greed and lust that tempts others to abuse power and intellectually because they alone can gain full knowledge of reality.” (Encyclopædia Britannica) In this way he is much more a representative rather than a

Plato and Aristotle’s views on the nature of a human being and the city are fundamental blocks of forming the best political regime. The ideal city of Plato stands upon the four virtues: wisdom, courage, moderation and justice. The concept of justice embodies the understanding that only when citizens are fulfilling their obligated roles while not interfering with others can a city achieve harmony. For this purpose, farmers, artisans, and shepherds will do what’s expected of them per their expertise while the Guardians, a special class, is fit to rule the state. So his view that since every individual has a different yet pertinent role in the city and as most men are only